@article {12021, title = {Pato{\v c}ka, Heidegger a ot{\'a}zka bytia}, journal = {Filozofia}, volume = {70}, number = {6}, year = {2015}, pages = {429-439}, type = {State}, abstract = {Pato{\v c}ka considers Heidegger{\textquoteright}s dealing with the question of Being in his famous Being and Time as a premature problem; and he thinks similarly about the solutions Heidegger offered in his later thought. Being is always a Being of beings and Pato{\v c}ka is in the right contrary to Heidegger. Heidegger{\textquoteright}s attempt at re-thinking Being as Being without beings undermines philosophy in a substantial way. Heidegger{\textquoteright}s later reducing philosophy to metaphysics is acceptable; it doesn{\textquoteright}t follow, however, that we should accept also all its consequences assumed by Heidegger. There is a key difference between Pato{\v c}ka{\textquoteright}s concept of philosophy, with man and history as its focus, and Heidegger{\textquoteright}s concept of philosophy focused on the problem of Being. Pato{\v c}ka offers the insight according to which Being, when thought in itself, is a hypostatized Being. Therefore, it should be completely abandoned, simply because there is no such Being. This insight questions the fundamental thesis of Heidegger{\textquoteright}s philosophy, which should unconditionally be rejected as groundless.}, keywords = {Being, Heidegger, Ontological difference, Ontology, Pato{\v c}ka, Time}, author = {Le{\v s}ko, Vladim{\'\i}r} }